Minutes from Pointer Events WG call 6 July 2022

Apologies, just realised that I forgot to send these out...

the minutes from the meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2022/07/06-pointerevents-minutes.html and copied below:

PEWG
06 July 2022

Agenda: 
https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/0d3af70c-0054-43dc-9c15-c60c5b9c3f3c/20220706T110000

Attendees
Present: flackr, mustaq, Patrick_H_Lauke
Regrets:  smaug

Chair: Patrick H. Lauke
Scribe:  Patrick H. Lauke, Patrick_H_Lauke


* pointerrawupdate missing in "Attributes and default actions" 
https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/451
* Should we add ongotpointercapture and onlostpointercapture to the 
mixin extension https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/448
* Heartbeat: Clarify what the target of the click event should be after 
capturing pointer events https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/356
* Meta-issue: update WPT to cover Pointer Events Level 3 
https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/445


# pointerrawupdate missing in "Attributes and default actions" 
https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/451

Rob: it should be identical to pointermove

Patrick: do we have concerns about bubbling?

Mustaq: it shouldn't bubble

Rob: we currently do fire it like pointermove, so would be a gotcha for 
devs if it was different from pointermove

Rob: I assume that's also how all other browsers behave. if not, we can 
discuss it

Rob: so i'd say just copy the pointermove

Mustaq: but no default action

<mustaq> Making it bubble like poinbtermove sounds good

Patrick: so bubbles yes, cancelable no, and no default action

ACTION: add pointerrawupdate to table as per above



# Should we add ongotpointercapture and onlostpointercapture to the 
mixin extension https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/448

Patrick: this is where i'm a bit hazy about what should/shouldn't go there

Mustaq: global event handler predates event listener / is an older concept

Mustaq: we shouldn't add new events to this global handler? that's my 
impression

<mustaq> I see Chrome has them too: 
https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/web_tests/external/wpt/interfaces/pointerevents.idl?q=idl$%20onpointermove

Rob: aren't those two already listed?

Patrick: oh...i think i got the wrong end of the stick/missed them in my 
haste to file an issue...

<mustaq> Corrected link: 
https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/core/dom/global_event_handlers.idl

Patrick: in @dontcallmedom's change he had 
https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/commit/3fb15cc2ac8d7cfb8140d4959edb7edff8c9831b 
the events marked up as {{GlobalEventHandlers/pointermove}} etc ... so 
this is probably more about using that respec convention in the prose

<mustaq> I take back my comment about global event handlers.

ACTION: Patrick to sort out 
https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/448 using correct respec way 
of referencing those two events throughout



# Heartbeat: Clarify what the target of the click event should be after 
capturing pointer events https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/356

Mustaq: started filing chrome issues, we have quite a few

Mustaq: mouse has one issue of course, which we discussed here

Mustaq: that one is easy. filed 4 for touch, which are harder

Mustaq: once all bugs are fixed, we should check that this issue 
specifically is addressed

Rob: would it be helpful to add link to this issue on the chrome issues?

Mustaq: will do

<mustaq> correction: I filed 2 or touches

<mustaq> Mouse: https://crbug.com/1342209

<mustaq> Touch: https://crbug.com/1342214 and https://crbug.com/1342219

Mustaq: may need one more

<mustaq> ...one more on explicit release.

ACTION: carry on with those filed bugs, retest at the end



# Meta-issue: update WPT to cover Pointer Events Level 3 
https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/445

Rob: generally we have tests as we implement things, so we should have 
everything. will just be a case of checking and confirming

ACTION: everybody have a look at WPT to see if there are any gaps/edge 
cases we need to test

<mustaq> 
https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed+label%3Av3+

Rob: so we want that list in the issue to cover everything new added to 
v3, and then tick it off?

Patrick: initially thought just noting what we're missing

Rob: listing everthing avoids duplicate work

Patrick: ok, let's go with that

[some more discussion on best approach]

<mustaq> Exclude the editorial issues?

<mustaq> 
https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed+label%3Av3+-label%3Aeditorial

Mustaq: we can go over the closed list of pull requests (from 
https://w3c.github.io/pointerevents/#revision-history) that are 
substantive/not editorial, add a "needs-wpt" label, and then remove the 
label when we confirm it has

ACTION: Patrick to go over list of closed v3 pull requests that are 
substantive, add "needs-wpt" label

Patrick: as a side note, for those involved in the touch events CG, if 
you have time/ideas on any of the open issues here (like new one from 
zcorpan), any thoughts appreciated 
https://github.com/w3c/touch-events/issues

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Friday, 8 July 2022 14:25:25 UTC